Mike Frerichs is 6'8" and still growing. If his ever-changing position on abortion keeps growing he will be like Dick Durbin, who is one of the most strident pro-choice politicians in the country but who used to be pro-life when he was a congressman from very pro-life Springfield.
In 2000, Frerichs ran against Chub Conner for the Democratic State Representative nod. He had this quote in the News-Gazette.
"It stems from my fundamental belief in the sanctity of human life,"
That very very pro-life position was reiterated in this NG article as well as this one.
Then in 2005, as he launched his bid to be State Senator, he began to "grow" a little. Instead of being pro-life he now held a position summarized in this way by the News-Gazette.
Asked if he opposes abortion generally, Frerichs said Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land.
That alone was enough to convince most people that Frerichs was making the politically opportunistic switch to being pro-choice. But two new items suggest that the switch is full scale.
First, in the most recent campaign disclosures, Frerichs reports receiving a contribution from the Women's Health Practice, one of two abortion providers in Champaign-Urbana.
Second, Frerichs website now lists Personal PAC as an endorser. Personal PAC makes no bones about the fact that abortion is their ONLY issue. And they have a record of not compromising on the issue. For example, Judy Baar Topinka is largely considered pro-choice by any reasonable observer. That doesn't prevent Personal PAC from excoriating her on their website, largely because of her moderate positions on government funding of abortions. I've also always understood that Personal PAC would not support candidates who support parental notification laws.
Personal PAC's issues page gives plenty of evidence of their very strident positions on abortion. For example, here is how they address parental notification. (Mike Frerichs purportedly favors parental notification.)
Teen endangerment laws require teenagers to get consent from their parents or to give them notice prior to an abortion.
Teen endangerment laws? And this group is endorsing Mike Frerichs?
Personal PAC's website says that their members will be getting a voter guide about a month prior to the election. It would be a lot better to see it now. If any members out there can secure a copy and want to send it along, I'll get it posted on this site.
It will also be interesting to see if pro-choice activists like Esther Patt and Ruth Wyman, who have been conspicuously absent from the list of Frerichs endorsers, show up on his website now.
I was afraid Mark had forgotten to barbeque Mike this week - did you have conflicting appointments?
I can't pretend to speak for Mike, or anyone else, but I am fully capable of disliking abortion, and when asked for my advice, suggesting adoption whenever possible, but yet still supporting Roe V Wade and the concept of a Right to Choose.
Apparently when it's Mike Frerichs it's a conspiracy.
CheapEngineer
"Apparently when it's Mike Frerichs it's a conspiracy."
It's not a conspiracy. It's just Frerichs trying to be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice at the same time.
Please tell me how Frerichs can be both Pro-Life and, as Personal PAC attests, more Pro-Choice than Judy Baar Topinka.
Well, cheap, this is no conspiracy. It's just a flip flop on an issue that many people believe should be guided by principle. I thought I was doing Mike a favor by letting all the pro-choice people know about his endorsement.
Yes, cheapengineer, you are corrent-----you do not speak for Mike on his position regarding abortion or you would have posted a disclosure.
Mike is a politician who is trying to get elected . His position is clearly adjustable to who ever provides funding and support that will enable him to get elected. His flexibility on this issue is pure politics, however his performance in his current position is a matter of record. As an engineer who should appreciate data, you should check his public performance record, his ability to lead and work with a staff then project his potential to represent the public.
I keep waiting for some positives about canidates instead of 'conspiracy' theories.
And one again wonders if our esteemed County Clerk has nothing better to do than shill for his party. I guess if you aren't bringing frivolous lawsuits, and wasting the CBs time and money with unsubstantiated charges, then you have to resort to political spin? Yeesh.
Here's an idea: someone can be against something in principal, but for it in theory. It doesn't have anything to do with flip-flopping, it has to do with intellectualism.
For example, I don't really like gay marriage. It weirds me out. In fact, I don't really like gay people making out in public places, or even holding hands. I am a relic of a lost age, for sure, but it honestly weirds me out. (Apologies to all gay folk - I have a problem, I know).
BUT ... I am sure as hell for their legal right to marry. I have a VERY hard time finding any part of the constitution that forbids it. And, reading Locke again this summer, it seems that the idea of Life, Liberty, and Property rights (the "Natural" rights) should extend to all citizens - not just heterosexuals.
Ok. So I don't like the idea of gay marriage, and it will probably weird me out, but I can see from a legal perspective that they have the right to marry.
The exact same scenario can be applied to abortion. You conservatives see everything in black and white. This paradigm works well in a society of low education but (here's my theory) - as the society becomes more informed (thank you Internet!) your Good and Evil worldview will be exposed as the fraud that it is.
Politicians are elected to secure the rights of their constituents. Mike can be against abortion personally, but still support it's legality. In fact, as I read the last 40 years of judicial history, it is his responsibility to do so.
Now Mark - don't you have to run off and raise someone's property taxes or something?
"You conservatives see everything in black and white. This paradigm works well in a society of low education but (here's my theory) - as the society becomes more informed (thank you Internet!) your Good and Evil worldview will be exposed as the fraud that it is."
Personal PAC sees this as a very black and white issue. So clearly defined is their position that Judy Baar Topinka isn't pro-choice enough for Personal PAC, but Mike Frerichs is.
The Pro-Life groups also consider this a black and white issue. If you won't vote to outlaw abortion, then you're not Pro-Life. The John Kerry, trying-to-please-everybody position ("I'm personally Pro-Life, but would never vote to impose my beliefs on someone else...") is a dodge used by someone who is trying to have it both ways. That is the position that Mike Frerichs has chosen, and signals a disturbing lack of principle - especially as he's been wooing Pro-Life activists for years, by trying to portray himself as Pro-Life.
You can criticize Shelden for bringing this up, but that's just trying to change the subject from an unpleasant fact: Mike Frerichs is trying to tell Pro-Lifers that he's Pro-Life, and trying to tell Pro-Choicers that he's Pro-Choice.
Wow Mr. Principal you have almost convinced me that it is OK to have several positions on every issue and not be a hypocrite. you are good!!
However, Personal PAC does not take to your "educated" world view regarding this issue. If Mr. Frerichs would have laid out his position as eloquently as you have to the personal PAC people, you can rest assured that MR. Frerichs would not have gotten any endorsement because, as some people are well aware there is no middle ground with this group.
You are considered any enemy of Personal PAC unless you share their views on the abortion issue completely.
The point of this thread is to show Mike wants to be all things to all people. His MO is historic and documented. It's pointless to argue the abortion issue itself here (another thread where you can go at it).
If Frerichs supporters can prove that he has a consistent record on abortion, be my guest.
A mind that never changes has ceased to grow.
Ralph,
Are you confirming that Frerichs has indeed changed his mind on abortion? That he's now Pro-Choice?
"A mind that never changes has ceased to grow."
A man with no principles has no place in public office.
Come on, Mark. You know as well as I do that every Republican in NE Champaign County still supports Frerichs because he's just such a nice boy, and afterall, "he is my cousin." We don't care that he won't support any principle we claim tobelieve.
I deleted a comment that contained a vicious personal attack against Frerichs. I may be working for his opponent, but that kind of stuff is uncalled for. Criticize him for his position (positions?) on issues, but keep it above the belt.
Wow. I can't believe you folks can't see the point here. Our entire government is based on the idea of compromise, and accepting the Rule of Law even if you don't agree with it.
It is an indispensable part of our system that we fight for rights we abhore. It is what makes America great.
Some can be against abortion but see, quite clearly, that it is a legal right. Just as I will never bring a gun into my home but would never try to infringe upon Mr. Yahoo's right to show his 5 year old how to load a shotgun. This is America.
To believe that being against abortion means you MUST be against laws protecting abotion rights is to force us all to be mentally juvenile. Grow up! Legal rights are NOT the same as moral rights and the law is VERY RARELY based on morality.
Unless you mean Lockian theory of natural rights as morality. This system has worked quite well for over 200 years. Let it be.
"It is an indispensable part of our system that we fight for rights we abhore. It is what makes America great."
America will not be made great through the murder of its unborn children.
Principal Jones, the point here is not about policy, it's about shifting positions based on political expediency. When he thought it would help him win an election in 2000, he had one position. Today it is another. A policy shift of this magnitude deserves a little explanation.
Consider this on another issue. Frerichs says that he opposed the governor and Ms. Jakobsson's pension raid. Fine. If he grows in the next few months and decides that Blago was correct, he should do a little more than flip flop. He ought to explain and forthrightly set out his position.
Let's see if I have the DURBIN argument....hmmm......" while I detest child molesters, what a person does in their personal life is a personal choice."
"America will not be made great through the murder of its unborn children."
Well stated, Obvious.
...Wow. I can't believe you folks can't see the point here. Our entire government is based on the idea of compromise...
Likewise. This isn't about compromise. It's about a candidate who has a history of avoiding tough issues, even while he wants a higher and higher political position.
It isn't about Frerichs changing positions and then sticking to it as much as it is about him not taking positions or trying to fly under the radar, hoping people don't remember.
Abortion should not be a legal issue. It should be an issue between a woman and her doctor like any other medical procedure and each person would proceed according to their own feeling of right and wrong. This may be a little simplistic for some of you but it would be the right thing to do.
I love simplistic - but your "medical procedure" also involves a 3rd person who doesn't get a vote.
Oh well, Naomi is going to steamroll over the GOP this year and Frerichs is going to win too.
Why is it that the majority of abortion extremists seem to be men?
You people don't get it. This is not about abortion. It's about Frerichs and his flip flopping. This would not even be a topic of discussion here if this was Brendan McGinty, or Ruth Wyman running. We'd all know where they stand, which would be where they stood last year and ten years ago. If Mike believes as some of you do, he should state that. "I still believe in the sanctity of human life, but I think this decision should be between the doctor and the woman."
Go and read his quote last year
If the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn Roe vs. Wade, Frerichs said "I'll look at every bill that comes through."
The clear implication here is that he won't vote for something in opposition to Roe, unless Roe is overturned. If that happens, maybe Mike will vote to ban abortions, as has been done in South Dakota. What in his statement suggests that he won't do that?
But keep backing up Mike and his slick responses. It sure wore well on John Kerry.
Just me -- Because at the heart of it, many men, including posters on this site, feel it is their 'God-given right' to control women -- deciding for women should happen to their bodies -- even if by getting pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to term -- it could cause the serious injury (coma, stroke) or death of the woman.
If these guys don't want to have an abortion, that's fine with me, but they shouldn't control my body. That's my right - and I'll vote to keep it my right.
"If these guys don't want to have an abortion, that's fine with me, but they shouldn't control my body. That's my right - and I'll vote to keep it my right."
Don't vote for Frerichs then. He doesn't believe in that right.
Is it ever ok to change your mind and evolve on a issue or should you always believe the same things you did 6 years ago?
yes it's ok to change. but i think when you change on an issue like this it points to political opportunism. i want my elected officials to change when the factual basis for their original position changes. a politician who changes, and offers no coherent reason for it, scares me. I mean, is he going to change on other issues? and if you say he isn't, why should I believe that? I'm not sure where Frerichs is on something like gay marriage, but if he agrees with me, it appears that i can have little confidence that he will continue to agree with me in the future.
So, yes you can change. But you shouldn't expect people to continue to believe in your ability to hold tough positions on issues.
"Is it ever ok to change your mind and evolve on a issue or should you always believe the same things you did 6 years ago?"
it's perfectly ok to change your mind. but be open about it.
Frerichs is still trying to tell some people he's pro-life. to me, it's not the changing position that matters, it's the fact that he takes different positions depending on who he's talking to. either he would vote to outlaw abortion, or he wouldn't - it's a simple issue that he should have, at present, only one position on.
So The Listener, WHERE has Mike evolved? Is he pro-life or is he pro-choice? That is the question.
Raoul, that is a good point. Is there anyone here who would like to take Mike's published statements, and information on his website, and try to define his position?
[...] It’s one thing to attack a candidate on issues, it’s another to take cheap shots. Mark Shelden at IlliniPundit has a post on 52nd State Senate District candidate Mike Frerichs’ stance on abortion. However, the post starts off with this: Mike Frerichs is 6”²8”³ and still growing. If his ever-changing position on abortion keeps growing he will be like Dick Durbin, who is one of the most strident pro-choice politicians in the country but who used to be pro-life when he was a congressman from very pro-life Springfield. [...]
the questions:
would he vote to outlaw abortion?
woudl he vote for parental notification?
would he vote to ban government funding of abortions?
would he vote to ban partial birth abortions?
none of this wishywashy "I'm personally pro-life but roe is settled law" crap.
mike frerichs doesnt have a uterus. what he would do personally doesnt matter. how he would vote on laws does matter, and thats why changing position matters.
if he has changed positions, he needs to be clear about it and stop tryting to have it both ways.
"if he has changed positions, he needs to be clear about it and stop trying to have it both ways."
Ask him. Call his office, email him (does he have a website?), put the question to him.
I know it's much easier to pundit from here than to actually ask for a clarification.
When and if I see him again, *I'll* ask him.
Has his stance on abortion suddenly become an issue in this election? Granted, for those who are strident about it either way, it's *always* an issue, but is there someone asking *everyone* what their current stance on Abortion is, or are we just checking up on the Democrats, hoping for a slip-up?
I agree that Freirichs' history seems to wander all over the map on this issue, but since there's a Federal Law that covers this, I never really worried about what vote Mike might make on Abortion. Perhaps we should double-check his stance on Horse-Thieves, and Owning Slaves. I've been more concerned with finding out if he's any good at the job he has now.
My deepest apologies for stepping on your personal issue - please return to your picking of nits unobstructed.
CheapEngineer
I cannot wait to see the response to that email on abortion. Flip flopping around on issues always leads to people questioning where you stand. Cheap, you also seemed to miss the part where Frerichs says that all bets are off if Roe is overturned. He's been asked directly by the media, and not given a straight response
I just wanted to take this moment to thank Mark Shelden for speaking out when Governor George Ryan flip-flopped on abortion and vetoed the ban on publicly funding abortions, when Congressman Tim Johnson and State Sen. Rick Winkel flip-flopped on term limits, and when Pres. George Bush flip-flopped on "Mission accomplished." Oh yeah, and for applauding Mike Tristano for flipping on your old boss, Lee Daniels too.
Mike is Pro Choice
Every politician has changed their mind on issues. But Rick Winkel (or Johnson for that matter) is not known to change with the audience and district. For better or worse, you know their position on things. Frerichs is in a different league. It isn't just this issue, it's LOTS of issues (or worse yet, not taking a stand at all).
As a conservative, I at least respect a liberal who is consistent and proud and forthcoming.
UPDATE!
Mike is now Pro Life
"Mike is Pro Choice"
Wait five minutes. :-)
Activists on both sides of the abortion issue want candidates to be 100 percent "pure" on abortion. To win their support, most politicians (Republicans and Democrats) make the strategic decision to please one camp or the other, and gravitate towards one extreme position or its opposite.
Unlike the activists and politicians, the vast majority of Americans are somewhere in between. Most Americans oppose banning all aboritons, just as most Americans oppose abortions "on-demand". (I suppose in Mark's mind that makes most Americans "flip-floppers".)
Frerichs' position has always been somewhere between the two extremes. That makes him vulnerable to attacks from the extremists (this time it's Shelden, but in past races it was Patt) for not being "pure" enough on abortion.
By the way, this site has spent a lot of bandwith on Frerichs' abortion position, but very little on Myers'. Can we assume that she's positioned herself as 100% pro-life? She opposes stem cell research? Against Plan B contraception? Opposed to rape/incest exceptions? No "health of the mother" exception, either?
Or is Judy Myers a flip-flopper, too?
It would appear reason this blog spends so much time trashing Frerich is that someone appears to be jealous of Mike's ambition, education, support, drive and especially his heigth.
Don't you mean green?
You're both wrong. The proper color is "red."
Gifford Boy
Check your local people. They don't seem to see your view of Mike
and so do not alot of his cousins. You are out of touch.
Out of touch, maybe, but Frerichs will win the NE county, which means a lot of R's will vote for him. Just illustrates that some peolpe's principles don't run too deep.
Frerichs' position has always been somewhere between the two extremes.
That is totally inaccurate. He has *changed* his position depending on the election and district. Again, the point isn't his stand on abortion per se. It is that Mr. Frerichs is a not solid and forthcoming and clear on many positions.
I want to know what exactly Judy Myers position is on abortion. On this website Gordy Hulten and others have claimed that Judy is 100% pro life. But in the State Senate she voted present on parental notification and she also had indicated in a survey on www.culturecampaign.com that she does not support parental notifcation. How can you claim that she's 100% pro life when she doesn't even support something with such broad appeal as parental notification. Even the proudly pro-death Judy Baar Topinka supports parental notification.
It seems like Judy is really the candidate who's all over the place on abortion
"It seems like Judy is really the candidate who's all over the place on abortion"
Nice try, Mike.
Gifford Boy
Bets are on and I think you will lose. He lost most of the north east
side last time. You need to talk to people in your area. They do not
support his views.
A good old beer would be good on the bet, that he does not run away
up there.
local watcher,
"You need to talk to people in your area. They do not
support his views."
That's exactly my point. People in the NE county don't support Frerichs' views, but they keep voting for him. Now they've helped to create a "political monster" that might actually win an election that matters. A Senator Frerichs should be scary to anyone who doesn't like the Chicago machine running the state.
"Here's an idea: someone can be against something in principal, but for it in theory. It doesn't have anything to do with flip-flopping, it has to do with intellectualism."
"Our entire government is based on the idea of compromise, and accepting the Rule of Law even if you don't agree with it.
It is an indispensable part of our system that we fight for rights we abhore. It is what makes America great."
Principal Jones,
Many laws are bad and have been repealed. The wealth of information we have now on the developing fetus since Roe v Wade was decided should challenge anyones intellect.
"That's exactly my point. People in the NE county don't support Frerichs' views, but they keep voting for him. Now they've helped to create a “political monster” that might actually win an election that matters. A Senator Frerichs should be scary to anyone who doesn't like the Chicago machine running the state."
Maybe they're voting for him because they know him, trust him, and he'll "do the right thing" when the time comes; even if they disagree with his view(s) on one or two issues. Basically voting on character. Picking who you think is the better person, or in the case of hometown folks, the guy/gal you know better than the challenger.
That's one reason incumbents can be difficult to remove from office (unless you're Joe Lieberman), its a people already know you type of thing, why deal with the unknown.
Just one possible angle for you to chew on or as cheap engineer would say, barbeque.
"I want to know what exactly Judy Myers position is on abortion. On this website Gordy Hulten and others have claimed that Judy is 100% pro life. But in the State Senate she voted present on parental notification and she also had indicated in a survey on www.culturecampaign.com that she does not support parental notifcation. How can you claim that she's 100% pro life when she doesn't even support something with such broad appeal as parental notification. Even the proudly pro-death Judy Baar Topinka supports parental notification.
It seems like Judy is really the candidate who's all over the place on abortion."
That website is incorrect.
Senator Myers supports parental notification. She voted "present" (rather than "nay") on the bill in question, HB 1900, because it did not have a grandparent clause allowing for minors who live with or have grandparents who are instrumental in their lives to sign off on the parental notification to have an abortion.
Prior to the vote, Senator Myers had met with various grandparent advocacy groups who believed grandparents needed more legal rights, especially in cases of broken families where they were primary caregivers. As a grandparent herself, those arguments held great weight with her, and she voted present after the Senate leadership stripped the bill of the grandparent clause.
She has supported parental notification in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.
America will not be made great through the murder of its unborn children.
Tell that to the Lebanese, jackass.
Oh, sorry. I forgot that Arab children aren't as important as 6 week old fetuses.
Hit it, Franti:
"Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury! Raise the double standard!"
Let's see if I have the DURBIN argument”¦.hmmm”¦”¦” while I detest child molesters, what a person does in their personal life is a personal choice.”ÂÂ
__________
Wow, somebody is truly driven to label themselves as a jackass.
______
America will not be made great through the murder of its unborn children.
_____
While I agree with your general point, I found this statement truly thought-provoking. After all, hasn't American been made great by slavery, genocide of native populations, and aggressive imperialism?
And that's an honest question--it really depends what we mean by "great" doesn't it?
Anyway, I have nothing to add on Mike, I don't know him and won't be voting on him this year...
[...] I guess this shouldn’t be too surprising, given Mike Frerichs’ earlier pandering on the abortion issue. At a Tuesday press conference, two leading Chicago politicians joined Frerichs in criticizing Myers' opposition to embryonic stem cell research. However, those criticisms fly in the face of Frerichs' previously stated opposition to that same research. [...]